Profits and politics weaken buffer ordinance

For decades, Sussex County has experienced severe wetland loss, deforestation and overdevelopment from the impact of large residential subdivisions resulting in such high levels of pollution that our waterways are unsafe for swimming and fishing.  A county-appointed working group reached consensus on key principles and recommended changes to improve the existing failed buffer ordinance. I was an active participant in that original working group. 

Over the past year, hours of public hearings heard citizens as well as topic experts offer thoughts and concerns; then council discussions resulted in proposed amendments, some of which strengthen, but others weaken current regulations and the proposed ordinance.

The proposed amendments provide clarification of the purpose and function of buffers, stronger language on permitted and non-permitted uses adjacent to waterways and wetlands, enforcement and penalties for violations and a modest increase in buffer areas. Unfortunately, the latest proposal, despite strong public opposition, includes buffer options, allowing for actual reductions of buffers for large subdivisions in exchange for creating alternative buffers potentially miles away from the proposed development. 

Buffer options were never presented to, considered by, or recommended by the working group, and their use would result in decreases in buffer protections on Sussex rivers and streams. County officials failed to show any scientific evidence or best practices demonstrating the ability of buffer options to provide equal or better protection that would justify reducing buffer protection at the development. Their use would allow increased impact from home, street, driveway and sidewalk runoff; reduced open space; and increased flooding.

Some claim buffer options were included to provide for flexibility for site design. However, a provision providing for site flexibility is in the proposed amendment – buffer averaging. Created and recommended by the original working group, supported by the majority who spoke on the matter, buffer averaging provides for ample flexibility in site design. Although buffer averaging may reduce buffer widths along parts of the water resource, it guarantees the total calculated buffer area is within the new subdivision. Problematically, the latest revision allows for buffer averaging and buffer options in a subdivision, green lighting developers to double dip. 

Buffer options are an effort to appease developers by allowing lots closer to waterways, generating premium prices, greater profit and increased return on investment. This would benefit the developer, but degrades the purpose and function of the buffer. Is it the county’s responsibility to ensure a greater rate of return for the developer? Buffer options are a false equivalent and should be categorically denied for all tidal and non-tidal wetlands, streams and rivers.

Too often during this debate we have heard that buffer options are a political consideration. Council must represent the needs of all of their constituents, not just special interests or influencers. Their vote on specific amendments, especially on buffer options, requires a clear explanation for their decision. A councilperson's vote will speak volumes regarding their concern for the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of their citizens. This is especially paramount for those incumbents who will be asking voters to judge their time on council and their suitability to serve again.